I remember both articles and they were derided by many, often by those who have no comprehension of the seriousness of people with exaggerated claims and the damage it does to genuine sufferers.

The Havok journal article is doing the rounds again, especially amongst the injured community, but this time it appears to be more readily accepted, even applauded in some areas.

It’s an emotive subject, often leading to arguments, my own opinion is that we need to separate PTSD and combat stress (battle stress, sheep shock, whatever term seems most appropriate), from the stresses and strains of every day life.

Undoubtedly I’m going to cop flak for this, but in my opinion, if you have PTSD as a result of anything that can be encountered in everyday life, such as an RTA, growing up issues or just because you lack the mental robustness to be a member of the British Forces, then don’t put yourself on a par, or demand the same treatment as those who genuinely suffer as a result of their service.

I’m not alone in this opinion.

It’s about time there was a full and frank discussion about this, but with honesty and not abuse.

You may not believe in God or a God, but trust me, when you’re really in the shit you will pray to everyone.

LE

Should cancer suffers who get cancer in service be treated differently than others? Does societal 'status' mean you get preferential treatment?

"The MoD has a strong record of learning from previous campaigns and encourages its officers to challenge existing norms and conventional wisdom."
"The Army simply decided that it was inappropriate for a serving officer to publish a book that is so heavily critical of the Army, the MoD and our allies. It respects the decision Dr Martin has taken"

LE

Oh, and who gets to 'decide' if you're worthy? Is there going to be some special panel? Who decides on the panel, and what basis have you made that?

What's the criteria for mental robustness - some funny coloured hat? Being a cool kid? Doing a course or two? Enquiring minds want to know.

"The MoD has a strong record of learning from previous campaigns and encourages its officers to challenge existing norms and conventional wisdom."
"The Army simply decided that it was inappropriate for a serving officer to publish a book that is so heavily critical of the Army, the MoD and our allies. It respects the decision Dr Martin has taken"

Think the difference is the duration being under fire for 6 months and suffering emotional / physical harm equals to same in an abuse situation - isn't the same as being in a car crash and one term PTSD fits all hats

LE

Fully agree. Awareness of PTSD and symptoms are all well and good, but there is a risk of crying wolf.

When Will Young says he has PTSD after being seperated from his twin at birth, it does seem a little out of hand.

Three Active Blocked Arrsers
1/ 184461 - Believing the X-files was a documentary series
2/ Gray Fox - Being a Nazi (which is rather bad for a Russian)
3/ John_g - Can start an argument in an empty room (which is probably empty as everyone saw him coming)

I remember both articles and they were derided by many, often by those who have no comprehension of the seriousness of people with exaggerated claims and the damage it does to genuine sufferers.

The Havok journal article is doing the rounds again, especially amongst the injured community, but this time it appears to be more readily accepted, even applauded in some areas.

It’s an emotive subject, often leading to arguments, my own opinion is that we need to separate PTSD and combat stress (battle stress, sheep shock, whatever term seems most appropriate), from the stresses and strains of every day life.

Undoubtedly I’m going to cop flak for this, but in my opinion, if you have PTSD as a result of anything that can be encountered in everyday life, such as an RTA, growing up issues or just because you lack the mental robustness to be a member of the British Forces, then don’t put yourself on a par, or demand the same treatment as those who genuinely suffer as a result of their service.

I’m not alone in this opinion.

It’s about time there was a full and frank discussion about this, but with honesty and not abuse.

I think a big part of the problem is that mental health is not an exact science and is very individual, and, as with more general health issues, taking a hard and sceptical line generally is more likely to drive away the deserving, who are often hard enough to reach anyway, whilst the walts, malingerers and compo wallahs press on regardless.

Also, everyday life for some can be genuinely traumatic, particularly if there are other psychological factors/conditions coming into play - high end autistics for example.

My personal test is that the faster someone tells me how traumatised they are and are willing to be diagnosed as such, the less they're likely to suffer from PTSD. It's galling to watch some creature going the full Jeremy Kyle because their air conditioning got stuck on 'hot' during a trip to the seaside but I'd rather suffer that than create an environment that discouraged people in genuine need from seeking help.

‘Men sail a boundless and bottomless sea. There is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel.’ - Michael Oakeshott

LE

I read an article in our local weekly paper about a woman who was asked to leave a local Asda on her mobility scooter. The accomanying photo showed her to be an obese lard arse. Anyway the reason she was asked to leave that she had a small dog that she needed for support as she had PTSD. She had been a nurse in the TA but had never served outside the country. She complained that the dog was needed and was wearing a special special "support dog" coat that she had bought on ebay from the USA!

1. War is God's way of teaching Americans about geography.
2. People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their
behalf.

I remember both articles and they were derided by many, often by those who have no comprehension of the seriousness of people with exaggerated claims and the damage it does to genuine sufferers.

The Havok journal article is doing the rounds again, especially amongst the injured community, but this time it appears to be more readily accepted, even applauded in some areas.

It’s an emotive subject, often leading to arguments, my own opinion is that we need to separate PTSD and combat stress (battle stress, sheep shock, whatever term seems most appropriate), from the stresses and strains of every day life.

Undoubtedly I’m going to cop flak for this, but in my opinion, if you have PTSD as a result of anything that can be encountered in everyday life, such as an RTA, growing up issues or just because you lack the mental robustness to be a member of the British Forces, then don’t put yourself on a par, or demand the same treatment as those who genuinely suffer as a result of their service.

I’m not alone in this opinion.

It’s about time there was a full and frank discussion about this, but with honesty and not abuse.

I disagree with your post but I think it's the way you frame it rather than the detail IYSWIM

PTSD has a quite specific set of symptoms.

If some one is presenting with the symptoms they have PTSD. Good luck telling a none military person who has been PROPERLY diagnosed with PTSD that their experience of symptoms is somehow less because they weren't exposed to combat.

Civvies with PROPERLY diagnosed PTSD can have backgrounds/histories/triggers that would melt any normal persons mind, long term abuse from birth, sexual assault etc

The problem is the concomitant anxiety, stress and depression that modern life apparently generates which when thrown in with a life event suddenly gets conflated with PTSD by GPs with **** all training in mental health to any depth who are happy to ask leading questions which eventual the patient turns into a "Clinical" picture of PTSD

GPs are more than happy to put a label on it, refer it on or just dish out pills. Which bearing in mind they only get a ten minute exposure to a patient is about the best they can do

Throw in every jakey ex squaddie pulling it out the bag after getting arrested for drugs/booze/violence etc

Playing the PTSD card legally shouldn't be used/accepted as a mitigation in the legal system unless it has been PROPERLY diagnosed and verifiable treatment treatment has failed leading to an offence

However, how much weight does it carry as a mitigation in the legal process? It may just be one of many cards some one in front of the beak plays to get off, does it even work? (I'll,petition my mate an experience defence barrister for an opinion from the coal face)

You hear about it a lot in the daily mail but does it benefit the people playing the card? And does this detract from "real" PTSD cases

Are loads of people claiming PTSD and taking up resources of genuine sufferers? If so this is a problem with PROPER diagnosis and allotment of resources

Ultimately more money should be spent on mental health in society as a whole. It's a ******* travesty that the military accept that the only real organisation to fall back on for mental illness is ostensibly a ******* charity

My combat PTSD is better than your PTSD is a divisive position which takes away from the real issue which is more mental health services, more military mental health services

Your beef is with ******* chancers and walts pulling the the card at every opportunity, which in your mind devalues "hard gained Combat related PTSD"

I agree with you on that hence my capitalisation of PROPER diagnosis throughout

Also while PTSD is a life changer, other mental health diagnosis and symptoms can also be a life changer and shouldn't' be devalued

ADC

There was a girl at Phoenix House who'd been diagnosed with PTSD because she'd signed off some people as "Medically Fit To Deploy" (or whatever it's called) to Afghanistan, and they'd been injured. I seriously don't know what to think about that.

LE

There was a girl at Phoenix House who'd been diagnosed with PTSD because she'd signed off some people as "Medically Fit To Deploy" (or whatever it's called) to Afghanistan, and they'd been injured. I seriously don't know what to think about that.

I made them MFD.
Because they were MFD they went to HERRICK.
Because they went to HERRICK they were blown up and injured.
Thus, if I hadn't made them MFD then they wouldn't have gone to HERRICK and wouldn't have been injured.
Thus it is my fault that they are injured (missing out several steps of logic).

It is what it is.

I presume many on here have either have PTSD, or know someone close to them with it. They know how hellish it can be. Would you want to condemn your friend, loved one or yourself to that torment because it wasn't the "correct" PTSD?

"The MoD has a strong record of learning from previous campaigns and encourages its officers to challenge existing norms and conventional wisdom."
"The Army simply decided that it was inappropriate for a serving officer to publish a book that is so heavily critical of the Army, the MoD and our allies. It respects the decision Dr Martin has taken"

I remember both articles and they were derided by many, often by those who have no comprehension of the seriousness of people with exaggerated claims and the damage it does to genuine sufferers.

The Havok journal article is doing the rounds again, especially amongst the injured community, but this time it appears to be more readily accepted, even applauded in some areas.

It’s an emotive subject, often leading to arguments, my own opinion is that we need to separate PTSD and combat stress (battle stress, sheep shock, whatever term seems most appropriate), from the stresses and strains of every day life.

Undoubtedly I’m going to cop flak for this, but in my opinion, if you have PTSD as a result of anything that can be encountered in everyday life, such as an RTA, growing up issues or just because you lack the mental robustness to be a member of the British Forces, then don’t put yourself on a par, or demand the same treatment as those who genuinely suffer as a result of their service.

I’m not alone in this opinion.

It’s about time there was a full and frank discussion about this, but with honesty and not abuse.

By far the greatest cause of PTSD is sexual abuse, particularly (but not exclusively) in females and related to childhood trauma. This can take the form of many hundreds of incidents over 10yrs plus and is normally extremely difficult to treat and can involve extended stays in sometimes secure mental health accommodation.

That diagnosis is the same one as soldiers who’ve experienced trauma get and those people who’ve been in RTA’s and clinically can show worse genuine symptoms than some soldiers.

There isn’t, and shouldn’t be a Top Ten of causes for PTSD. It’s the same condition whatever the cause and should be treated in a way suitable to the level of symptoms displayed, no matter the cause.

ADC

I made them MFD.
Because they were MFD they went to HERRICK.
Because they went to HERRICK they were blown up and injured.
Thus, if I hadn't made them MFD then they wouldn't have gone to HERRICK and wouldn't have been injured.
Thus it is my fault that they are injured (missing out several steps of logic).

It is what it is.

I presume many on here have either have PTSD, or know someone close to them with it. They know how hellish it can be. Would you want to condemn your friend, loved one or yourself to that torment because it wasn't the "correct" PTSD?

Nope. Obviously not. I just can't get my head around it. I've done a trillion MCCPs, and it was just paperwork to me. Maybe my brain's wired differently. I dunno.

I've mentioned before that my mate "runs" Combat PTSD Angels, so I know what it's all about and am not completely ignorant about it. I've seen her husband go into flashback mode, but it wasn't anything like the MFD girl's actions/ manner. Like I said. I dunno.

I remember both articles and they were derided by many, often by those who have no comprehension of the seriousness of people with exaggerated claims and the damage it does to genuine sufferers.

The Havok journal article is doing the rounds again, especially amongst the injured community, but this time it appears to be more readily accepted, even applauded in some areas.

It’s an emotive subject, often leading to arguments, my own opinion is that we need to separate PTSD and combat stress (battle stress, sheep shock, whatever term seems most appropriate), from the stresses and strains of every day life.

Undoubtedly I’m going to cop flak for this, but in my opinion, if you have PTSD as a result of anything that can be encountered in everyday life, such as an RTA, growing up issues or just because you lack the mental robustness to be a member of the British Forces, then don’t put yourself on a par, or demand the same treatment as those who genuinely suffer as a result of their service.

I’m not alone in this opinion.

It’s about time there was a full and frank discussion about this, but with honesty and not abuse.

@dingerr,
The military reject those that are not physically fit, and train those that are selected to the required physical standards to carry out their role. They do not do the same with regard to mental robustness/fitness. They are starting to get there with things like Amputee actors for more realistic first aid training, but that only goes some way to preparing you for a No Duff incident.

I know one guy (ex chunky) with PTSD, who didn't cope well with exhuming bodies from Bosnian mass graves, I guess having kids bodies fall apart as you attempt to pick them up is a bit difficult to train for.

You have been through a very traumatic experience which would be a PTSD trigger for most people, but I'm guessing your EOD and CIED training helped you rationalise what happened.

Circle, square, triangle, waves
They are open to me like a flower
How would you like to have your mind caressed
Can't you feel that I'd possessed with
PSI power PSI power PSI power…

War Hero

Throw in every jakey ex squaddie pulling it out the bag after getting arrested for drugs/booze/violence etc

Playing the PTSD card legally shouldn't be used/accepted as a mitigation in the legal system unless it has been PROPERLY diagnosed and verifiable treatment treatment has failed leading to an offence

However, how much weight does it carry as a mitigation in the legal process? It may just be one of many cards some one in front of the beak plays to get off, does it even work? (I'll,petition my mate an experience defence barrister for an opinion from the coal face)